Home and Dry!

[Rubber Duck]

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090324_planning_for_internationalized_top_level_domains/

Currently, all existing gTLDs allow for the registration of non-native character sets to the left of the dot (숭문.net or 中国首饰.com), but with the introduction of IDN TLDs, registrations containing the translation of .com or .net will also be possible (태영산업.회사 or海尔.康姆).

Clearly, this has the potential to exponentially increase the size of corporate domain portfolios and the potential for abuse, especially as world markets expand in size and in importance. Fortunately, VeriSign has recently socialized an idea that would protect the rights of existing .com and .net domain owners by providing them exclusive rights to register existing domains across all newly introduced .com and .net IDN TLDs.

Although a formal commitment has not yet been made by VeriSign to support this approach, this may now be the time to begin evaluating the registration of brands in .com and .net using native character sets to support important markets. In particular, companies should consider registering translations, transliterations, and transcriptions of their famous marks now to support current and planned global marketing efforts. By doing so, owners of these domains could potentially have exclusive rights to register in matching .com and .net IDN TLDs, when they become available.

We are hopeful that VeriSign will adopt this policy when they submit their applications for the internationalized versions of .com and .net, and that others who also intend to offer internationalized TLDs and ccTLDs will follow suit as well.

[mulligan]

So VeriSign want us to pay for all those extra registrations if the policy is adopted?

[Rubber Duck]

So VeriSign want us to pay for all those extra registrations if the policy is adopted?

That part is not clear but if you have exclusive rights you don't need to and besides only the version in the same language is of any interest. So at most two, perhaps three if the different languages have have the same representations, say Arabic and Farsi. You can wait until you need multiple versions. You maintain your rights by just renewing the ASCII version.

I still believe they will go with DNAMES. This is highly consistent with their previous DNAME proposals. DNAMES also does not allow them to charge multiple registrations, as there is only one registration and a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Anyway, make of it what you will. I have better things to do than spend all week arguing the toss over this, with a group that largely cannot be bothered to get of their arses and do some research to find out what is possible and what is not.

[555]

Interesting timing. Several here understood this is the only way to go long ago but it is good to read that coming from a credible source like MarkMonitor and published on CircleID.

[Ryu]

Fortunately, VeriSign has recently socialized an idea that would protect the rights of existing .com and .net domain owners by providing them exclusive rights to register existing domains across all newly introduced .com and .net IDN TLDs.

Although a formal commitment has not yet been made by VeriSign to support this approach, this may now be the time to begin evaluating the registration of brands in .com and .net using native character sets to support important markets. In particular, companies should consider registering translations, transliterations, and transcriptions of their famous marks now to support current and planned global marketing efforts. By doing so, owners of these domains could potentially have exclusive rights to register in matching .com and .net IDN TLDs, when they become available.


Whilst such an arrangement would benefitial to many of us, including me, many countries like China would disagree, arguing it's totally unfair to give VeriSign such exclusive rights over IDN TLDs.

I consider it to be very unfair as well. Giving Verisign rights to control translation of .com and .net is out of question as that would give Verisign additional right over some important generic gtlds. Transliteration may be acceptable though if it can be sufficiently demonstrated that such transliteration means nothing but .com or .net.

[bwhhisc]

Whilst such an arrangement would benefitial to many of us, including me, many countries like China would disagree, arguing it's totally unfair to give VeriSign such exclusive rights over IDN TLDs.

I consider it to be very unfair as well. Giving Verisign rights to control translation of .com and .net is out of question as that would give Verisign additional right over some important generic gtlds. Transliteration may be acceptable though if it can be sufficiently demonstrated that such transliteration means nothing but .com or .net.

Regarding .com and .net, giving rights to anyone but Verisign to have the transliteral or equivalent has the potential to cause widescale confusion and a huge mess of lawsuits that could ties things up for years from the existing idn.com and idn.net nameholders. The discussions and decisions have long been hashed out and the language in various ICANN documents have made it abundantly clear that there isn't going to be any "squatting" when it comes to idn.idn gtlds. This situation has been repeatedly addressed early on in papers and recommendation by the GNSO and GAC. Verisign back in 2005 laid out plans for aliasing idn (google: Verisign DNAME proposal for equivalent mapping). Along the same lines, JPRS will have the ability to alias .jp which they have been studying (google: JPRS report on DNAME), China has already aliased .cn within China and so on and so on.

[Ryu]

I agree that no one should have any right over the transliteration (not translation) of .com and .net. But that doesn't mean Verisign should have them.

When it comes to IDNs, it should be a country or countries of which population speak relavant languages that should be given right to decide which organisation can be a registrar of any IDN tlds.

What I can tell you with fair amount of confidence is that countries like China won't keep silence if Verisign tries to claim their right over .公司 or .网. I believe such a move will be blocked.

[phio]

I agree that no one should have any right over the transliteration (not translation) of .com and .net. But that doesn't mean Verisign should have them.

When it comes to IDNs, it should be a country or countries of which population speak relavant languages that should be given right to decide which organisation can be a registrar of any IDN tlds.

What I can tell you with fair amount of confidence is that countries like China won't keep silence if Verisign tries to claim their right over .公司 or .网. I believe such a move will be blocked.

Well, it seems like .cn is gaining on both .com and .net by huge leaps. I read somewhere that .cn is number two in registration popularity. Also, there may already be a deal in the works with CNNIC and Verisign...we really don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

Anyways, if this news gets out to more channels, there may be a mad dash to get whatever is remaining. If it goes unnoticed for a while, it will give me more time to develop...or as they say in London...develope

[Rubber Duck]

It would actually be illegal not to.

Dot Com is Trademark. Every legitimate translation of Dot Com is Trademark everywhere outside China and Japan.


Whilst such an arrangement would benefitial to many of us, including me, many countries like China would disagree, arguing it's totally unfair to give VeriSign such exclusive rights over IDN TLDs.

I consider it to be very unfair as well. Giving Verisign rights to control translation of .com and .net is out of question as that would give Verisign additional right over some important generic gtlds. Transliteration may be acceptable though if it can be sufficiently demonstrated that such transliteration means nothing but .com or .net.

[Rubber Duck]

Again, you seem to be deliberately missing the point. Major IP specialists are now actively pushing IDN.com to their Corporate Costumers. How can it go unnoticed for a while?

Well, it seems like .cn is gaining on both .com and .net by huge leaps. I read somewhere that .cn is number two in registration popularity. Also, there may already be a deal in the works with CNNIC and Verisign...we really don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

Anyways, if this news gets out to more channels, there may be a mad dash to get whatever is remaining. If it goes unnoticed for a while, it will give me more time to develop...or as they say in London...develope

[phio]

Again, you seem to be deliberately missing the point. Major IP specialists are now actively pushing IDN.com to their Corporate Costumers. How can it go unnoticed for a while?

I think the IP specialists move a little slower in America. :cool:
They're probably thinking of how to get to Lake Havasu or Cabo in time for spring break.

[Rubber Duck]

They are not bloody slow when it comes to trying to steal your names.

I am in conflict with one of the bastards at Nominet. If the complaint and response are ever published it will make very interesting reading whichever this goes!

What pisses me off it their attitude to domainers. Without domainers they would be out of a job.

I think the IP specialists move a little slower in America. :cool:
They're probably thinking of how to get to Lake Havasu or Cabo in time for spring break.

[idnowner]

When it comes to IDNs, it should be a country or countries of which population speak relavant languages that should be given right to decide which organisation can be a registrar of any IDN tlds.


As for ccTLDs, that is one issue (with their own political battles of control going on). I believe the testbed launched in November 2000, was just that - a "test bed," meaning preparations and laying the ground work for full IDNs, and that the intention and plans were to offer the IDN .com and .net equivalents on top of, or in place of the English .com and .net. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. After all, Yahoo will almost certainly have rights to Yahoo, in the respective language, for use as a search engine, under any ccTLD.

[Rubber Duck]

I agree that no one should have any right over the transliteration (not translation) of .com and .net. But that doesn't mean Verisign should have them.

When it comes to IDNs, it should be a country or countries of which population speak relavant languages that should be given right to decide which organisation can be a registrar of any IDN tlds.

What I can tell you with fair amount of confidence is that countries like China won't keep silence if Verisign tries to claim their right over .公司 or .网. I believe such a move will be blocked.

Sorry, but this is totally contrary International Law.

To do what you suggest you would have to abolish WIPO and then tear up every international treaty relating to IP rights and start all over again. Some might think that is desirable, but I think we need to consider whether it is a very plausible outcome.

Further, you need to understand that Governments do not own languages. Most languages stray across borders like stray cats. Could the British really claim rights over every Trademark that is based on an English word, I think not. Indeed, we can't even mind our own bloody business with our own ccTLD without getting bloody Yanky Lawyers try to trample all over us. Reverse Hijacking seems to be the only US industry turning a profit these days!

[sbe18]

As usual, my opinion sides with RD / David on this...

The Verisign DNAMES / CNNIC deal is looming .
With China Mobile and China Unicom as registrars...3G mobile phones likely to be web server enabled in 2011+,
China IT specialists are planning for IPv6 and mobile devices and IDN's and 3G to be massive economic engines for China.

Verisign and CNNIC are tied together now.
Not unlike the US Treasury and China's finanace bureaus...

farsi/arabic and the urdu/hindi/arabic problems are way down the ladder for
CNNIC and Verisign and ICANN....

they are important.....but getting dot CN/dot zhong guo in the root is the fast track plain and simple...

Verisign will easily veto any IDN gtld transliteration/translation attempts...for dot com and dot net...

and RD is right...the ascii registration is the only one.

many years from now...Verisign will come out with a menu of services for
multi-language support and analytics....imho.

steve

[bwhhisc]

Verisign will easily veto any IDN gtld transliteration/translation attempts...for dot com and dot net...

I think you intend to mean "Verisign will easily veto any attempt by 'anyone else' attempting to alias their .com and .net brands."

[bwhhisc]

Looking back on related GAC/ GNSO report from a year ago....January 2008. Things are moving along, albeit slowly but still to the same tune.

http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccnso-gac-issues-report-idn-cctlds-31jan08.pdf

[Ryu]

Dot Com is Trademark. Every legitimate translation of Dot Com is Trademark everywhere outside China and Japan.

Can you share with me where I can find such information? Does "everywhere" include countries like India, Thailand, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

I wonder how on earth people could even decide what translation of Dot Com should be in many non latin languages.

[Ryu]

As for ccTLDs, that is one issue (with their own political battles of control going on). I believe the testbed launched in November 2000, was just that - a "test bed," meaning preparations and laying the ground work for full IDNs, and that the intention and plans were to offer the IDN .com and .net equivalents on top of, or in place of the English .com and .net. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. After all, Yahoo will almost certainly have rights to Yahoo, in the respective language, for use as a search engine, under any ccTLD.

I agree that it makes sense. But in the real world, we often see things that don't make much sense, especially when politics is involved.

[Ryu]

Sorry, but this is totally contrary International Law.

To do what you suggest you would have to abolish WIPO and then tear up every international treaty relating to IP rights and start all over again. Some might think that is desirable, but I think we need to consider whether it is a very plausible outcome.

Further, you need to understand that Governments do not own languages. Most languages stray across borders like stray cats. Could the British really claim rights over every Trademark that is based on an English word, I think not. Indeed, we can't even mind our own bloody business with our own ccTLD without getting bloody Yanky Lawyers try to trample all over us. Reverse Hijacking seems to be the only US industry turning a profit these days!

I am not really suggesting anything new as I am not proposing an idea of giving equivalent of .com or .net in non-latin languages to registrars other than Verisign.

All I am saying is that the issue is very political. And countries like China will intervene if Verisign tries to obtain exclusive rights over IDN TLDs like .公司 (company) and .网 (network). Sure, China doesn't own the language of Chinese, but it wouldn't care about such a thing. And once big countries like China come out with strong opposition, I don't think ICANN can ignore it.

[Rubber Duck]

I am not really suggesting anything new as I am not proposing an idea of giving equivalent of .com or .net in non-latin languages to registrars other than Verisign.

All I am saying is that the issue is very political. And countries like China will intervene if Verisign tries to obtain exclusive rights over IDN TLDs like .公司 (company) and .网 (network). Sure, China doesn't own the language of Chinese, but it wouldn't care about such a thing. And once big countries like China come out with strong opposition, I don't think ICANN can ignore it.

I am not convinced that Verisign would have rights to Gongsi. I think they would have a fair claim on the Network symbol though.

[Rubber Duck]

It all boils down to Usage. Only in the Far East is it necessary to register trademarks.

I am not about to start doing tutorials on Trademark Law, but if you ask a local they will tell you how dot Com is represented in local scripts.

Can you share with me where I can find such information? Does "everywhere" include countries like India, Thailand, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

I wonder how on earth people could even decide what translation of Dot Com should be in many non latin languages.

[Drewbert]

And once big countries like China come out with strong opposition, I don't think ICANN can ignore it.

If ICANN were really scared of countries, we would have IDN ccTLD's by now.